Skip to main content

About your Search

20121001
20121009
Search Results 0 to 23 of about 24 (some duplicates have been removed)
happened last night. when mitt romney beat president obama in last night's televised debate. so the first televised presidential debate that we had was in 1960. here are all of the other years that we have since have televised presidential debates. every four years now we have these debates on tv. the only years, though, so these are all the years, right, right? the only years, though, in which you had an incumbent president running against a challenger in all of the years we've had presidential debates on tv are these years. so in terms of understanding the historical context of what happened last night when mitt romney beat president obama in this first debate, this is the universe of like things to compare it to. this is how to understand it in terms of american political history. it's only these years right here. that's it. now, by definition, you never have an incumbent president in this situation more than once. presidents can only serve two terms so there's only one opportunity when they carry into that debate, when they're running for re-election, they carry into that debate the g
happened last night when mitt romney beat president obama in this first debate, this is the universe of like things to compare it to. this is how to understand it in terms of american political history. it's only these years right here. that's it. now, by definition, you never have an incumbent president in this situation more than once. presidents can only serve two terms so there's only one opportunity when they carry into that debate, when they're running for re-election, they carry into that debate the gravitas of being the president of the united states facing off against some non-president who wants their job. that only happens once per president. and these are the only times that has happened on tv in our nation's history. that's it. and this is the situation that president obama found himself in last night. it's only happened six other times in american history. so how did he do in historical context? there isn't that much historical context, right? like, this is a very knowable thing. honestly, that first one, that first one in 1976 where incumbent president gerald ford face
. but the 2012 version of that theory now is that mitt romney cheated in the debate against president obama this week not by having somebody feed him the answers through an ear piece but rather by bringing the illegal crib sheet on to the debate stage with him. you see, previous debate rules have set out very clearly that, quote, no props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by any candidate and yet have a look at this damning evidence. this is at the very beginning of the debate on wednesday night and as you'll be able to see clearly here what is that in your pocket? mr. romney very clearly pulls something from his right pocket and he pops it on to the podium in front of him. violation. violation. according to the conspiracy, complete with the grainy, slow mo youtube videos, this is mr. romney cheating. now he must have been working from note cards the entire debate. the explanation from the romney campaign is mr. romney was not pulling notes out of his pocket. he was pulling out of his pocket a handkerchief. sure enough, a lit
working from note cards the entire debate. the explanation from the romney campaign is mr. romney was not pulling notes out of his pocket. he was pulling out of his pocket a handkerchief. sure enough, a little later on, oop, in the debate mr. romney is seen wiping his nose with said handkerchief. so whether you are persuaded by mitt romney wiping his nose on what is supposed to be his crib sheet notes, if you're on the left, again, like this is a conspiracy theory that just does not help. president obama did not win the first debate against mitt romney. whether or not you're happy about that he didn't win. but if your takeaway from this conspiracy theory in this debate is the reason the president didn't win is because mitt romney cheated, then what is the utility of that theory for you? what is the utility of that information? how do you think president obama should then prepare for the second debate? should he just do exactly what he did this past wednesday night, except keep a closer eye out for the cheating because that is the only reason he lost? i mean, it may be comforting t
romney to have a great debate, but president obama needs to make a mistake. you can be sure he's going to be guarding himself against. the biggest danger for obama is that he has the most to lose here because the election seems to be going his way. and therefore, if he's too cautious he will look too laid back and might let romney, who can be ferocious in these things, as we saw in the newt gingrich debate. but there's so much damage to undo about himself for romney before he gets to obama. the 47% comment and the whole image of somebody who doesn't care about the middle class and only the rich. he has to use the debate to repair that and only then can he pivot to obama, which is why he needs a long strategy. >> the last point is right. it's a difficult match between the venue, the medium in that debate and what he needs to accomplish, which is about seeming like a guy who cares about the middle class. there's ways to do that in ads and staging and all sorts of other things. hard when you're standing next to the president. but that's the distance he needs to to go. e.j.dionne, great to
ago. and what will effect the debate tomorrow is mr. ryan in these comments makes the same case romney was making when he made the devastating 47% remarks. in ryan's case, he doesn't use the 47%. he picks a different figure. for him the figure is 30%. you may remember ryan himself his response to that disastrous tape of mr. romney at the fundraiser was that romney was, quote, obviously inarticulate in making his point about the proportion of americans who are dependent on the government, vi victims and not worth his time. here's how paul ryan makes that same point. >> the point is we are reach in a fiscal tipping point. the moral tipping point is even worse. the moral tipping point is before too long we could become a society we were never ever intended to be. we could become a society where the net majority of americans are takers, not makers. another great think tank runs great numbers. i'm kind of a numbers guy. 20% of americans get 75% of their income from the federal government. they are dependent. another 20% of americans get 40% of their income from the federal government so the
and when most voters are now starting to vote. an incredibly negative impact for romney and his campaign at a difficult time for them. now on the eve of the first presidential debate, if they were hoping to put that behind them, any hope of getting away from the issue has now been expunged because "the huffington post" tonight set off its own bells and whistles, flashing siren bomb shell by posting previously uncirculated video of paul ryan speaking less than a year ago. and what will effect the debate tomorrow is mr. ryan in these comments makes the same case romney was making when he made the devastating 47% remarks. in ryan's case, he doesn't use the 47%. he picks a different figure. for him the figure is 30%. you may remember ryan himself his response to that disastrous tape of mr. romney at the fundraiser was that romney was, quote, obviously inarticulate in making his point about the proportion of americans who are dependent on the government, victims and not worth his time. here's how paul ryan makes that same point. >> the point is we are reaching a fiscal tipping point. the mora
in conservative media about this event, the old tape here, as opposed to the expectations game that mitt romney is trying to control ahead of a really high-stakes debate. >> that's interesting. i don't mean to cast dispurgss on the journalist integrity, but i have noticed there have been a number of things that the ream campaign have wanted to inject into the campaign discussion that have been launched on the drudge report. so again, not casting dispurgss, but why do this the night before the debate? >> all of the discussion, all of the speculation in the political media is about how high the stakes are for mitt romney tomorrow night. so it changes the subject a little bit. it's a bright, shiny object. it diverts attention away from the huge expectations that he has. mitt romney's lost control pr an expectations perspective to reality. he's behind in the race. he has to have a good debate performance to begin to close the gap to get back in the race and to get ahead of president obama if he's to be elected president. >> so this is sort of a safe -- obviously the romney campaign is hoping they d
Search Results 0 to 23 of about 24 (some duplicates have been removed)